User:Borisblue/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 02:07, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Boris, I'm sorry I was in there editing at the same time as you, hope I didn't edit conflict you. The History looks a little worrying—please check that I haven't accidentally overwritten any of your changes! (I know the new software was dealing badly with edit conflicts a couple of days ago, at least.) Anyway, I'm all done now, edit in peace! Bishonen | talk 30 June 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Borlaug edit is done

I was just applying a standard referencing system through the article, which is a pain, but completely necessary.--nixie 30 June 2005 08:39 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for support

Thanks for supporting African-American literature as a featured article candidate. Best, --Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche

I've left a comment on your nomination page. My guess is that Mark, the editor who decides about nominations, will not take Cognition's objections seriously, especially if the latter's outnumbered. I'm sorry you're having to put up with this nonsense. It's nerve-wracking enough to have an article up for FAC without having to deal with LaRouchies. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 10:19 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat-sen

Do you have Chinese installed on your computer? If not, then the ???s are probably Chinese characters (I can't see any ???s). Try not using IE and switch to Firefox (www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/). Then you can see every language.

[edit] Group

Hi...thanks for the note. I don't know anything about a Christian web group but will try and let you know if I hear anything. God bless! KHM03 6 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Sun Yat-sen FAC

I'm glad you've decided to take on the task of improving the article....it was something I really wanted to do but never got to doing...

I've replied at Talk:Sun Yat-sen. --Jiang 8 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

[edit] What revert?

Where have I reverted anything?--Fenice 8 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Well, then I seriously wonder why that is not in the text. Again, it is possible on wikipedia to make your nazi-accomodating point. There is nothing I can/will do about it. I think it is a shame, you do not think so. So what else is new. You are uncooperative to an astonishing degree: you're complaining on my talk-page that I have never asked for the solution just mentioned (mentioning annexation and clearly saying it is not one). That is what I have been typing into the keyboard at least ten times this week. So you can ask yourself again, why it is that the article is unimprovable. I am just not into this kind of stupidity, I know many people here are. Can you imagine how this would be going on? The two of us would take 500 weeks to improve the article, reverter themanwithoutapast not considered.--Fenice 8 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Although minor POV points still exist here and there, I am certain a reader going through the article will understand that most Austrians supported the Anschluss as a unification. Listen, I don't want to make an enemy out of you. Read my edit history on the article and you will see that all my edits shifted the article toward your point of view. I have no POV to push; I just want to save what is in my opinion a very good article from being de-FA'd. And please don't make references to "cheap asian products", this may be interpreted as an ethnic slur. Borisblue 8 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

  • Thanks for removing the 'asian' comment. Be careful about stuff like this, we asians are very proud of our manufacturing industry :) Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
    • Fenice, reverting a statement backed by both britannica and encarta will not go down well in your FARC...Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
      • for your info, you've reverted back to your edit ignoring the word "annexation" completely ( the one user:themanwithoutapast originally reverted. I've sourced my claims for annexation to be included Fenice; But I actually kind of like your idea :"You have also not offered a viable solution, that is mentioning annexation and demonstrating it wasn't one - which would be the obvious Wikipedia way to solve a dispute"

so why didn't you do this? We both agree that a) significant amounts of people and sources call it annexation. and b)The Austrians supported the Anschluss, so it wasn't a real invasion, so what precisely are we arguing about?? Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

        • check my latest version Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
          • Your edits don't mention the word annexation. You haven't made a single edit between tagging it, and Re-tagging it so when exactly did you put your solution in place? Nevermind, i've already done it, just comment as appopriate.Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
            • Maybe we should merge this discussion. Your place or mine? Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
  • whoa, merging is messy. Borisblue 8 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Your place or mine? I'd say we are even on slurs now. The right place for further discussion is Talk:Anschluss.--Fenice 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Dove

Hello, Borisblue. I noticed that you added the Peace Dove award on Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia. It has been removed because it was not officialized through Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals. If you wish to nominate something to become an official Wikipedia award, please add it there. Thanks, Sango123 July 8, 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing the Peace Dove on WP:BAP. I'll comment on it tomorrow; I think it has quite some potential. Sango123 July 9, 2005 03:19 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Boris, about the Anschluss article

Just wanted to say, the reason for me to keep out of the discussion is that I don't think it is possible to talk touser:Fenice in a reasonable manner. Even before he realised that this article exists it was difficult to keep the article to some extend NPOV. Now with regard to Fenice persistent view that the Anschluss was a "joining" meaning a voluntary act by Austria (through its representative body = government of that time) I just don't know where he is taking that from - the point is the German army marched into Austria and Austrians were cheering (not fighting)- if we want to call it an annexation or not, a voluntary joining is something else - for instance Austria's joining the European Union. I also don't see if Fenice is ultra-right wing or ultra-left wing or just wants to have history written his way and to be honest I don't care.

So thx for making an effort to keep the article as a FA, however as for me I will keep myself from getting involved in any history or political articles on wikipedia in the future - they are doomed to be subject to dispute always and forever.

Salut and greetings from rainy NYC. Themanwithoutapast 19:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:KC

Hi, Borisblue. The Peace Dove proposal passed with all support votes and one neutral at the Kindness Campaign talk page. It is now listed on the main KC page. Congratulations! :) Sango123 20:57, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Kate

I saw at Kate's page you said you assumed Kate is male. To you does not Kate ring a bell as a female name? When would it ever be a male name? Redwolf24 10:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

ehe ;) well, i don't have any particular preference what gender people refer to me as, so... use whichever's easiest. —kate

See my talk page. Redwolf24 00:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat Sen again

So far I've heard of no opinions saying the long "names" section is bad, and I've only heard some saying it will be bad shortening or removing it. Deryck C. 11:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Put it on FA after the PR falls to the second half of the page. Deryck C. 13:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm now waiting for further advice from a person who finished dozend of FACs. After that I'll do the FAC. Deryck C. 07:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the comment inresponse to what erwin wrote. I wasn't sure how to handle that. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat-sen (4)

That expert gave no response. I think we're going to tackle the FAC by ourselves, possibly seeking help from some other Hongkongers. Deryck C. 10:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] message rec'd - thx

I got your message in regards to the picture on the grave site (on my user page).

Indeed, I have thought about driving out there (I live about 60-80 miles away), but I am very limited on funds. (Plus my big Chevy Monte' Carlo car gets about 15' miles per gallon, not great, especially considering I might get lost on the way there and back --and have to pay for photos.)

If this is necessary, I will attempt to take care of it, but Fair Use might allow the pic. Also from an aesthetic or appearance point of view, I understand that maybe it would help to have a picture that meets the highest standards.

I do hope to find time to look into this and address the concerns. Yes, you are right: A large part of the responsability (maybe a majority?) to address concerns lies with me, as the nominator -I raised the nomination, just as I pointed out that others raised objections. (While I'm unemployed, I do spend time preparing for a job search, but this is my "day off," and I hope to "find time.") If I do take any photos, I hope to include some with me in them, simply to prove that I was really there and I took the photos, so I can dispell concerns about "Did he really take photos?" Of course, I don't need to be in the photo that goes in the article, but it would be good to keep all photos in archival for a record.

Thank you for reminding me.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat-sen FAC

Sun Yat-sen
Sun Yat-sen is now on FAC. Let's click here and vote for its success!!!!
Deryck C. 09:14:59, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat-sen & LaRouche

I saw your question on User talk:Cberlet. The American System was a concept of Henry Clay in the early 18th century. Virtually all modern applications of the term to later individuals are directly derived from LaRouche theories. They should be removed from articles, based on both an ArbCom decision and on good sense. Many uses of the phrase "American system" in regard to Sun are references to other schemes or theories that are unrelated to Clay's. -Willmcw 01:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence in this matter. Due to your efforts, combined with those of numerous other editors, this article has become yet another example of the success of the Wikipedia approach. Yes, oddball theories are added and may stay for a year or more before being properly addressed. However that is relatively rare, in my opinion, and is more than balanced by our NPOV treatments of those very same oddball theories. For example, our articles about Lyndon LaRouche and his enterprises are the most detailed and comprehensive reference available online. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kathleen Blanco

(Re)-inserting demonstrably false info into the article on Kathleen Blanco and describing a correction as "vandalism" are not suitable behaviour.

[edit] mandy moore vandal

Thanks for letting me know, I just wanted to let you know that I setup a page at User:Jtkiefer/MMV to catalogue all the IP's used by this vandal, please feel free to add any more you see to the list. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that the current view on this seems to be to just revert and ignore this vandal since it appears to be a user using random IP's and vandalizing random pages which means that there's not a great deal that can be done about it. You're welcome to keep updating the list though if you'd like, even though it probably won't do much good. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat-Sen & American System

Sun Yat-Sen is seen as the "father" of modern China by Western conservatives and many moderates, but within China and among progressive scholars this is a contentious issue. Sun Yat-Sen certainly favored some sort of U.S. model, but I am not sure that it is fair to claim that he supported specifically the American System, and since that is used as a classic propoganda term by the LaRouchites, I would ask for a non-LaRouchite cite for both elements of the claim just to be safe.--Cberlet 12:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hah! pays to read the top material first. Both my concerns are already in the article. "forerunner of the revolution" and the discussion on the article page about his legacy covers that part, and the industrious Willmcw already nailed the "American System" issue.--Cberlet 12:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reverted edits by x

Hi, I'm new to RC patrol, and I was wondering how you do the 'reverted edits by X to version by Y' edit summary. Is there a shortcut to reverting an edit?Borisblue 22:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Those who have been granted administrator status have access to a "rollback" feature which does this automatically. Otherwise you will need to create a macro or type the text in manually. —RaD Man (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Those who have been granted administrator status have access to... Huh? Yes, you're right that you can type it in manually, but Borisblue may not understand: He was asking "how do I, a non-admin, regular user, make an edit summary?" ANSWER: While you have the edit window open (like I am doing right now), you see the little "edit summary" box below? Well, just add some text in there as comments, and it appears in the edit history as additional commentary. The title to the sub-section automatically appears below, and you can add to it --or even subtract from it. Borisblue, do you understand? Hope this helps!--GordonWattsDotCom 02:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Umm, actually I was asking how they got the automatic computer-generated edit summaries, like "reverted edits by 111.222.11 to version by Borisblue". That was the admin rollback feature. But thanks for the help anyway, Gordon :)

Borisblue 02:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see! (upon 2nd reading, hindsight is better, maybe 20-20) Thx 4 the clarification.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: reverted edits by x

Hello, at the moment, the edit summary is only available as the automatic result of the "rollback" link that admins have on diff pages and user contribution pages. However, it is not a requirement to state who's edits you're reverting and what version you're reverting too, its just an easy way for others to keep track of who is making edits that need reverting. You can feel free to just use short edit summaries like "rv" or "rvv", etc. Sorry that that is all I can offer, and good luck patrolling.  —siroχo 01:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

What Siroxo said.  :D —RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In re: [1], here's Mark's comments on stability

In re your post: here, here are comments by Mark aka Raul654, the Fac editor, and a big wheel in Wikipedia:

(quoting Mark here) "I think you misunderstand the stability requirement - the stability requirement is meant to discourage articles that are *currently* unstable; it's not meant to apply indefinitely to the future. In the case of this article, it's only gotten 5 small edits in the last week, which (to me, as the person who wrote that requirement) is relatively stable →Raul654 05:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)" the diff for this edit of Raul

"(quoting Mark again, a little later) Also, given all the changes, it's rather unstable ATM (50% of the article disappear overnight) so if/when this nom fails, it might be a good idea to renominate it again in a couple weeks. at 2:25, here at this diff, Mark (aka Raul654) clarifies and changes his mind. However, things have calmed down. It is stable now, and may be in the near future, but that is not guaranteed. However, no less than four editors, on the Fac talk page, said something about waiting. I wonder why, but they seem eerily unified on the issue, and honestly wondering. I wonder what would be best.

The article is good, but some editors are uncertain of that. I don't know how to proceed here, but all that I have said seems true -and this is confusing, because some observations indicate that "all is OK, proceed" while others suggest "wait for others to feel comfortable." ?? --GordonWattsDotCom 03:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

For news on the issues of conflict, see the Schiavo talk page (it's pretty short and small right now) and also the edit comments and edit history, diff by diff (i.e., scroll through the changes one-by-one -you know how to work the diffs, right?)--GordonWattsDotCom 03:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: Here's the list of concerned editors and the diff:
    • Alabama Boy, Nichalp, and Taxman (there were three opposing editors, not four, but I had counted Mark's rejection as the 4th one who wanted to wait)
    • Ryan Norton and I want to move forward now; you are in-between, as I read you, and the uncertainty of my colleagues makes me uncertain or "in-between," sitting on the fence on this issue.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. It never ceases to amaze me that people will fight over the minutiae of the Wikipedia, but I suppose in the end the scrutiny that every little thing gets can only be a good thing. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 00:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Work? PhD? When I could be wikiing? Am I confused? -Splash 02:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] block

Hi Boris--I blocked him for a few hours. He's at the University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, so the IP may be shared. Hopefully he'll be doing something else by then. Happy editing and thanks for the RC patrol work! Antandrus (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your help is also needed at Talk:Terri_Schiavo

Your help is also needed at Talk:Terri_Schiavo

...time-sensitive issues; could you come and vote. Come and vote, please?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I apologize for misquoting you; it has been a hectic week, and after a 2nd look at your comment, it seels vaguely familiar, --yes, I think it was another editor who made that analysi -sorry for the oversight; overworked poor brain and "we're all human" weaknesses...--GordonWattsDotCom 04:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat-sen

Sorry, I only realized there was already discussion ongoing at User talk:Deryck Chan after I posted the explicit "object". I left a note at User talk:Deryck Chan#Sun Yat-sen. I'm also in the US and there are indeed some texts that go into detail (albeit from the western perspective which is good because the Chinese perspective can be easily found on the net) on Sun Yat-sen. (I happen to have the book by Bergere ISBN 0804740119 with me right now.) However, these texts will go on for hundreds of pages and into much more detail than what we need. So per User talk:Deryck Chan, if you would like to see the encyclopedia articles, then just drop a note. Just making sure that we cover what the "competitors" cover and not bias the article with the Sun "cult" should be sufficient. --Jiang 06:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Borisblue, Please support my request for adminship on en.Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your 2¢ sought: Much positive feedback for Schiavo FA-nom

Your 2¢ sought: The Terri Schiavo Featured Article nomination has made much progress and has received much positive feedback, including some from Mark (AKA →Raul654), the FA-editor: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo. As one of the esteemed editors in that vein, I'd like you to review the FA-nom and throw in your 2¢-worth. Thx.--GordonWatts 15:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice news

Whatever happened before, Sun Yat-sen is scheduled to be on the main page on 8.10.2005. Let's do every measure to improve the article within these few days! Deryck C. RfA 17:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA!

My dear Boris, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. Your consideration that editcountitis is bad since we all go through periods of inactivity, when the matter was being put against me by a few people, gave me strength and cheered me up a lot; I felt I was being understood at last. You'll always have a friend in me. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So what do you do in your spare time?

Dear Boris,

How often do you read articles such as the President of the U.S. that you can change them every five minutes?

Just wondering is all.

[edit] Volvo

Hoping you can help, I keep editing the Volvo Cars page so that the information contained within the page is accurate. I am an Auto Analyst and I know Volvo quite well. Please help.

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the kind words about my possibilities as an administrator...it's just not something in which I'm interested at this time; maybe in the future. Thanks again...KHM03 22:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newton & Flamsteed

From John Arbuthnot:

"Arbuthnot was an amiable individual, and Swift said that the only fault an enemy could lay upon him was a slight waddle in his walk. His conviviality and his royal connections made him an important figure in the Royal Society. In 1705, Arbuthnot became physician extraordinary to Queen Anne, and at the same time was put on the board trying to publish the Historia coelestius. Isaac Newton and Edmund Halley wanted it published immediately, to support their work on orbits, while John Flamsteed, the Royal Astronomer whose observations they were, wanted to keep the data secret until he had perfected it. The result was that Arbuthnot used his leverage as friend and physician to Prince George, whose money was paying for the publication, to force Flamsteed to allow it out, albeit with serious errors, in 1712. Also as a scholar, Arbuthnot took up an interest in antiquities and published Tables of Grecian, Roman, and Jewish measures, weights and coins; reduced to the English standard in 1705, 1707, 1709, and, expanded with a preface (which indicated that his second son, Charles, was born in 1705), in 1727 and 1747."

Since Isaac Newton mentions the enmity of Flamsteed, I thought I'd point this bit out. Arbuthnot, incidentally, was a friend of Newton's from about 1695, but Arbuthnot had a lot of friends and never took credit for himself, so no one knows much about his role. (Arbuthnot said, "Biography is one of the new terrors of death," so he intentionally made it difficult for anyone to write a biography.) Geogre 02:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newton

Thanks for addressing the things I pointed out on the FAC nomination, I haven't changed my vote to support because I'm waiting to see if other people have problems with the content. I don't know enough about him to make such judgements, but comapred to an article like Charles Darwin it seems kind of thin, for example as far as I can tell there is reatively little summray of the biographcial detail that currently resides in The writing of Principia Mathematica, and what is mentioned is mixed in with scientific research - which doesn't make much sense now the article has been split into biography, research etc. With this split there is also now a 30 year gap in the biographical information. Shouldn't there also be a summary section for his occult views in addition to that on his religious views?--nixie 02:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback Liberation

I do not know if you have seen this yet. If so, just ignore this message. See ya. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] congratulations

congratulations to you on making your 1000 edit that is really great Yuckfoo 04:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanx for Welcome

Thankyou for the welcome. I regards to your suggestion of getting an account. My current decision is not to for now, I'll see if I want to stick around. (Any changes made on Wikipedia by User:203.164.18x.xxx is certainly by me.) Mark 01:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gauss

hello there, yes thanks for pointing that info out, I did not see that part. Happy editing as well... Gryffindor 09:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Thank you for your honesty Borisblue. I see what you mean. However, maybe this discussion here will show you why I did what I did and why it was a mistake [2] and maybe it will put the issue into perspective. The other allegations of Islam bias, etc. are not true and are why users are making such comments are explained by my responses to some editors. Also the comments by oceansplash may tell you who is actually biased. Thank you very much.:) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like he's just editing his own user talk page, though. If I see him start on some articles I'll consider blocking. Everyking 04:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia for FAC?

Thanks for the suggestion. I suppose it's worth a shot, but Malaysia has a long way to go (not just the country, the article!). We need to cite sources or it'll be shot down in peer review without a second glance. We should also closely follow the conventions set by WikiProject Countries. And as for Bandar Utama, I used to live and study there, but I've moved...to Sunway Damansara. They're not too far apart, though, and Bandar Utama's still a part of my life because of all my friends there. Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about the references, but I also have exams, and am not working at home, so being absent-minded, I might have trouble remembering to bring relevant books to my father's office or a cybercafe to cite. Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed vs. Kate

Yes, I do have the definitive answer. User:Kate is a dev and former admin (she requested to be deopped). She's most famous though for the edit counter. If you look at an RfA archive, you'll see these comments:

  • I'm slightly confuzzed. Is she Kate Turner or is he Edward Brocklesby? XYZ 16:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm both (although I don't use my real name online much). — Kate Turner | Talk 16:55, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Thus, Kate is male, but intended to be female. Refer to Kate as she, as that's the intent, but know that in real life there is a man behind the name. I know of one other person who does this, a friend of mine, but I don't think s/he wants me to tell anyone that he's charaded. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFA/SV

I respect your opinion, and have responded to your comment under the oppose section. I explain my use for the brief notes there as for my own use, taken after only a cursory read. Though I disagree with a couple of your points, I do sincerely regret if the notes appear to be "arrogand and condescending." Regards, -St|eve 04:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bounty Board

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP:GRFA

No, I didn't. I considered that possibility. I suppose it might be beneficial to ask, but I also expect that any editor who was the subject of a controversial RfA is very likely to be adamantly opposed to its inclusion as an example at WP:GRFA, as I'm sure they'd like to put the whole thing into the past. If we presume to give them a say in whether it is placed there as an example, we could be left with no examples or perhaps ill-suited examples. Their RfAs are clear cases in point, and are a matter of public record here as the RfAs are not deleted once closed. I think perhaps it's a matter of weighing the good of the many vs. the good of the few; we might offend a four editors, but we might help a large number of editors avoid such contentious RfAs. Certainly it's a grey area. Your thoughts? --Durin 17:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • More comments in response to you on my talk page. --Durin 17:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haukur's RFA

Thank you for supporting my nomination. That you didn't, as you said, entirely agree with me but still decided to throw your support behind me was especially important to me. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 07:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Just wanted to say thanks, although you voted to oppose my RfA I actually did bookmarks the links you suggested and have started to enjoy helping out on some of those. So I appreciate your input. Thanks again! Ramallite (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for voting on my RfA. I realize that I have not been here long, however other users said I would do just fine as an administrator, so I followed their advice. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 05:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi, Borisblue. This is about the lead image on the Hugo Chavez article. Anagnorisis stated that we should use the UN image, since he stated that that site says somewhere that, as long as one does not use images for advertising, using their images is fine. So I switched out the lead image to use the UN image. I hope this works better for you. If we were to do a vote, I suspect we wuld just get one vote for a government picture where he is wearing a sash, and two votes for the UN photo (even though ideally I'd like the red-shirt Aló, Presidente! picture the best. Bunchofgrapes stated that we should use a formal picture also, stating that it would need to be free use as well. So if you can provide both an official photo AND verifiable documentation that use of the image is allowed for any purpose, then we can take a vote on it. Regards, Saravask 06:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Karmafist

You're featured on User:Karmafist/users to watch; recently described by another editor as a "hate page". Andy Mabbett 11:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Now at User:Karmafist/kittens and sunshine, with the same content. Andy Mabbett 08:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Karmafist/Sunshine and Kittens

I renamed it to a less ominous name in order to remind myself and others of what its real purpose is(keeping track of users who I might think i'll see in an RfC and remembering good users) and dissaude others of what its purpose is not (getting into grudges with other users). Pigs up there does that, and he gets into 3 edit wars a week and is on the verge of getting kicked out of Wikipedia forever from his Rfar, which he's trying to ignore.

I thought you were a problem, because quite frankly, I disliked that whole "anti-editcountitis" craze that went on a few weeks ago; it seemed like an ignorant mob, and that comment you had seemed to place you square into it. However, I know how easy it is to get caught up into things, so I appreciate your candor there. Sorry for any distress, and thanks for your kind message before. Please let me know if I can help out in any way in the future. Karmafist 06:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

You wrote Good editor, but better safe than sorry. That got me thinking. I don't know most of our admins (or admin candiates). Should I vote against them until I get to know them, and so object to everybody I don't fully trust? Do you really think that Halibutt would abuse the admin rights if he was given them? If you don't know enough about him, wouldn't 'neutral' be the better choice? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt has explainted at the RfA page that the Black Book was moved to his namespace by community consensus (and it was not created by him, instead, he edited it to more NPOV version). IIRC, even Jimbo commented that it may become an educational page - after some editing, which never happened, as the page was forgotten by all concerned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Strange. Eventhough the page was not made by me, not used by me, voted by the community to stay and moved to my user space by the admin to list it for deletion, and, above all, was started as a way to avoid conflicts rather than promote them, it is still used as an evidence (?) of my (?) bad conduct. While I understand your better safe than sorry attitude and do not intend to even try to make you change your mind, I still find such an explanation strange. Halibutt 07:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if this could change your mind?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Have you read it and still think it is an 'attack page'? It was never intended as one or used as one. Community consensus was to move it, not delete. Should the fact that this forgotten and never-used page be preserved in a user namespace be a sufficient reason for the assumption that he will abuse his admin rights and (...do what?)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I recently noticed your comment at Piotrus' page and would like to clarify a tad. The page was kept where it was not because I found it important, but as a matter of fact because I found it not important at all. And certainly not important enough as to look at it any more or as to waste time on asking to delete it. Note that there are lots of page in my user space that weren't used for ages, many of them are not needed any more. For instance, there is still User:Halibutt/Curzon line, which I last used in September of 2004, the page on User:Halibutt/Tabelka used in May of that year or User:Halibutt/Battle of Warsaw (1920) (November of 2004). I never really thought of deleting them as I never heard wiki needs more space and considered them to thrown out. Halibutt 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought I already explained that, but I will do it once again. I know you asked me not to post any more comments at your talk page, but I felt deeply touched by your comment on mine and your failure to understand or at least to acknowledge the real history of that page and Witkacy's conflict with Nohat, of which I'm apparently a victim now.
  1. It was not me to place Nohat at that page, and it was Nohat himself to move it to my personal namespace
  2. I did think for a while on how Nohat felt about being there, and that's precisely why I tried my mediation between him and Witkacy ([3], [4], [5], [6])
  3. In the latter comment I even explicitly said that I believed he should not have been listed there and that the project page was used by one of the users for his own aims rather than community's good by listing him there. I wrote that because I in fact did think for a while how did he feel about being listed there for such a non-vague thing.
  4. Because of my involvement, Nohat left this comment, in which he expressed his thanks to me for defending his cause and that he understood the intentions behind that page's creation
  5. So, basically you're holding against me what Nohat himself found as my virtue. That's why I felt your comments both on my talk page and RfA are simply unfair. And that's exactly why I decided to post this comment here. While I will not ask you to reconsider your vote, I certainly would like to hear at least some sort of explanation. You're free to oppose my nomination for any reason, but please, pretty please make this reason at least real.
  6. BTW, just like you, I've also been on several people's black books, be it real or imagined. That's why I thought that project was supposed to become a discussion page rather than a list of personae non gratae or anything. The fact that it evolved into something nasty was neither my intention nor an effect of my actions (as can be seen for instance in my RfD comment). Halibutt 04:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. WikiThanks.
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

I am going to leave it stand. I appreciate your comments and I will do my best to uphold the trust you have given me with your vote. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you.--MONGO 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4.242.*.* vandal

He's been vandalizing Pumpkin pie and a few other articles for several weeks. I block him and he leaves weird all-uppercase messages on the anon-IP-address's talk page. I tried asking him what was the point of what he was doing but he doesn't answer that. -- Curps 07:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for stopping by to comment on my RfA. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on bounty board?

Have you considered getting an RfC on the bounty board to gauge the community's opinion on whether editors should be paid? I'm thinking of starting one, as it is a gray area. Borisblue 18:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea, if you wanted to start one. I'm going on a wiki-vacation here in a few minutes, but I'll be interested in seeing what the consensus turns out to be. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

I'm sorry - that's not your fault, but those criteria are the most absurd thing I've seen on Wikipedia since Iasson was banned. They've apparently been a while looking at the page history, but I've never seen one case of them actually being used in my whole time on Wikipedia. Ambi 04:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: DYK

Well, Malaysian politics is my hobby. ;-) Besides, there's not much else I can think of that hasn't got an article on Wikipedia, although I might consider writing up something about various Malaysian celebrities now and then (I already did Nicol David and Karamjit Singh, but as you can see, they're nowhere near the standard of, say, Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia). And the fact is that the tagline of the DYK entry for Badruddin Amiruldin is accurate — it's hard to take his remarks (and their context) in any other way. (I don't like the DAP very much, especially with their socialist economics and all, but they're better than nothing, IMO. Much of what Gerakan says reflects my opinions, but much of what they do goes flat out against them.) You can check out the video (linked at the end of the article) if you don't believe it. Johnleemk | Talk 19:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course. But if the DYK guys want to include these articles, I'm not one to stop them, am I? I just suggest them and hope to see if they'll accept it. The Malaysian Malaysia tagline probably wasn't that well-done, but I would still argue it's the literal truth. The uproar when Lim Kit Siang announced his revival of the Malaysian Malaysia campaign would appear to evince that. I think the DYK guys just accept these articles because Wikipedia has too much of a Western-centred approach as it is (also called "systemic bias"). So they'll probably grab whatever non-Western stuff they can get. DYK also doesn't have too stringent standards on these things, unlike the featured article of the day, which is heavily vetted by Raul654. (You definitely won't see two Gwen Stefani songs in a row, or anything of the sort.) We didn't have an article on Nicol David until recently. Johnleemk | Talk 06:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO RfA

Thank you for your vote and all your support during my RfA. It was a long week and I appreciate your backup. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you!--MONGO 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: vandal

Just to let you know, the IP was blocked a few minutes ago :) --FireFox 17:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right, but I am not an Admin and cannot block users, so well done to User:FireFox.--Cactus.man ✍ 17:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Only three edits so far, and none in a while. If he starts up again, I'll warn, then block. Everyking 06:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ketuanan Melayu

I don't object to affirmative action for the Malays, which they undeniably need. What I object to is the belief that Malays are the tuan of Malaysia, which is pretty much apartheid. Both beliefs were predicated on irrational assumptions — in one case, the assumption that the Whites are superior to other races, and in other case, the assumption that Malays are more Malaysian than non-Malays. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please read

[7] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] --

[[8]], the discussion of which you may or may not consider worth reviewing. BrandonYusufToropov 18:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace

I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ann's RfA, etc.

Hi, Borisblue! First of all, I want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA. I know I'm very late thanking you, but I've been a bit caught up with college work. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. Secondly, I must apologize for ignoring your message about Terri Schiavo as a featured article candidate. I'm afraid, for the same reason, I just didn't manage. I had a quick look at the voting page. There are problems with the footnotes in that article, because sometimes people deleted parts from the main text without deleting the corresponding footnote, so the numbering got botched. Anyway, in the last few weeks, my Wikipedia activity has been limited to things that either wouldn't take up much time or were quite urgent. Sorry not to have been more helpful. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brunswick/Braunschweig

I agree that it is a bit strange that the city is at Braunschweig but the region is at Brunswick-Lüneburg but it is maybe not a big issue. I was refering to the discussion on Talk:Braunschweig, above the section Gdansk vote. It is quite old so I don't see anything wrong in reopening it. I also saw a discussion somewhere else but for the life of me I cannot find it now. Let me look for it better later. Thanks, Stefán Ingi 16:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it User talk:195.124.114.37. Stefán Ingi 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article rating, content fairs

See Wikipedia_talk:Article_rating#Let.27s_have_regular_contests_:-.29 for some recent thoughts on article rating & improvement. +sj + 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment

Hi there. You showed some intrest in the idea of Wikipedia:Article rating. This has become Wikipedia:Article assessment, which has now started and is accepting submissions under the topic "Natural disasters". It would be great if you could find the time to take a little look at it. violet/riga (t) 16:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)